October 1, 2004

THE LOOKER:

ONE WINNER ON SUBSTANCE, ANOTHER ON STYLE (DICK MORRIS, October 1, 2004, NY Post)

PRESIDENT Bush's positions on the issues aired in the debate last night are so sound and John Kerry's so contradictory that the Republican could not help but win the debate. But, despite the contradictions of his positions, Kerry showed Americans that he looks and acts like a commander-in-chief and someone we could trust with power.

No one's ever doubted that John Kerry is who Hollywood would pick to play the president. They just couldn't use him in a speaking role.

Posted by Orrin Judd at October 1, 2004 1:29 PM
Comments

The difference here, as opposed to the last time Bush debated as an incumbent, in 1998 against Garry Mauro, was that while in both debates Bush tended to approach sentences warily before trying to beat them to death with a rock, he didn't really have a good grasp on his core ideas about what he wanted to do with a second term in office when he faced Mauro in El Paso. But in that case, the main goal was to just play defense to try and win re-election by the biggest margin possible to set up a run for the presidency in 2000.

Last night, the problems were almost entirely in style, not substance, with the main errors there not being due to any mistakes on policy statements, but in Bush's failure to point out several examples of condradictory stances made by Kerry. The senator, on the other hand, came off as polished before the camera, but in need of some day-after spin on several of his remarks, especially the Sally Field-like desire for global affirmation of any pre-emptive U.S. military action.

Posted by: John at October 1, 2004 1:41 PM

Morris, as shown by his #1 pupil Bill Clinton, is all for style and symbolism over substance. I agree that Kerry benefited from not looking like an oompa-loompa as some expected but I believe (perhaps overly optimistically) that as the debate sinks in Bush will fare better as Kerry's gaffes are analyzed. Any minor bump this creates for Kerry should dissipate, especially if Cheney takes Edwards apart in their debate. And I don't buy the argument that Kerry will mop the floor with Bush in the next debate because it is domestic issues - Kerry is still a flip flopper and Bush can defend his domestic policies.

Posted by: AWW at October 1, 2004 1:47 PM

Plus Kerry voted for most of them. Also, many of his complaints flow from Clinton policies. Should be fun to run against Clinton, as I'm sure the Prez will point out.

Posted by: Jeff at October 1, 2004 1:51 PM

I am a Bush supporter who will be voting for him in November, but I don't think he did a good job last night. There were too many gaps between his words, and at times he would say, "Uh, uh, uh..." Also, he kept saying, "hard work, hard work, hard work..." when referring to the War in Iraq. Remember, foreign policy issues are supposed to be the president's strong points. The next debate will deal with domestic issues, and President Bush will have to do exponentially better on that one if he hopes to ensure a victory in November.

Posted by: Vince at October 1, 2004 3:55 PM

Vince:

"Hard work" conveys that he doesn't take it lightly without having to say it was wrong.

Posted by: oj at October 1, 2004 5:41 PM
« ALONE AGAIN, NATURALLY: | Main | WHAT COALITION? »